2338 réponses à ce sujet

[smudboy]

[quote]Blackveldt wrote...
The argument is as follows:  Squad members can die; therefore, said squad members will return as cameos in the next installment.  This is a very specific conclusion based off insufficient evidence.  The fact that squad members can die cannot alone support the conclusion.  You cannot say with 100% certainty that squad members will fulfill a cameo role.
[/quote]
Um, if they die, why would they have cameos?

Because any of them can die, there's no point in fleshing them out more.

If they can die, not even be recruited, not even be imported, then how can they possibly be involved in anything?

The fact that they can survive is a variable, but not a big one, since not every player will have that same variable.  Thus to constitute a proper set of side-characters, they'll need to either 1) make new characters, 2) have existing side characters act as generic placeholders.

[quote]
We do not need to dichotomize Mass Effect. 'Plot' and 'character development/relationships' are not necessarily two warring entities but part of a whole.
[/quote]
How?
Where do the side characters have any plot relevance?

(hint: Mordin and Legion.)
[quote]
I was not referring to ME2.  I stated that character development and relationships can be a plot in and of itself, referring to possibilities and therefore geared more toward the future.   If I were talking specifically of ME2, I would have instead stated:  Character development and relationships were a plot in and of itself.
[/quote]
So what's your point, in regards to the argument where squadmates in ME2->ME3?

[quote]
Assumption.  We do not have sufficient evidence to make this call.  We do not know how ME3 will start or end or specifically how ME2 and its characters/relationships will fit or lead into it.
[/quote]
Um, no.  We look at ME2.  We see the lack of connection between side characters and main plot.  There is none, save Mordin, and an intro by Legion.

We then look at the ending of ME2, and realize anyone can die.  Seems pretty obvious.

[quote]
How the information is revealed is foreshadowing; it is a writing technique.  ME2 did this via Tali dialogue / data pads.  I am not referring to how we came to this realization, however.  I am springing forward to ME3 (since it is obviously not integral to ME2's story) where it is indeed a part of the plot (and not merely a writing technique) and Tali's continued friendship begins to possibly shape the outcome.
[/quote]
And this has any bearing on how ME2 squadmates are going to be ME3 squadmates...how?

[quote]
Again, not talking about ME2's relationships here in regards to the game's main plot.  My whole argument is concerned with possibility.  Even when providing an ME2 example (Haestrom's sun), I applied it to ME3--how the relationship with Tali in ME2 may affect ME3's plot.  Worth noting, however, is that you are operating under the assumption that a 'symbiotic' relationship, whether in the beginning stages or not, does not exist in ME2.
[/quote]
Because there is no symbiotic relationship between ME2's plot and side characters.

Because Tali foreshadowing "dark energy" has nothing to do with proving she, or anyone else in ME2, will be a squadmate in ME3.

[quote]
To humor you, however, operating under your personal assumption that no such relationship(s) exist in ME2, it is entirely possible for a supporting character to develop a "connection" later due to past events.
[/quote]
Not if they're dead/not recruited/not imported.  Generic placeholder connection, like a body needs to be present to e.g. pull Shepard up from a fall or something...?

[quote]
That is, after all, how human relationships may work (a shared past or event, etc), no matter how insignificant.  A supporting character may experience a specific event, which in turn can open up any number of opportunities.  Tali suffered through a trial in the midst of discovering her father's death.  Shepard can comfort her, speak out for her--such things can strengthen a relationship, and ME3 can simply continue that development, perhaps weaving Tali's loyalty and renewed strength of character into the story's main plot itself.
[/quote]
Or Tali could die.  Or anyone else could die.  Or not be recruited or imported.

[quote]
Still operating under your first assumption (that no such relationship(s) exist in ME2), a writer may want to continuously develop a relationship.  To reach your full potential, so to speak, with an LI at the end of ME2, and therefore most likely at ME3's beginning, can seem shallow, even cheap, considering the little personal time Shepard actually spends with any LI (not to mention Ashley/Kaidan/Liara).  More time gives the writers more content and dialogue with which to work and more depth for the relationships.  This is still speculation, however, as I am not a Bioware writer and do not know what they have planned or why they would specifically "hold back" a  connection for later (assuming that were the case).  The potential deaths has no relevance to meaningful relationships.  A writer can still write an in-depth romance, etc, for a character that might die.  If that character is indeed dead, that subplot simply is not pursued in that particular playthrough--much like the romance subplots of Jack, Miranda, and Tali are not available/pursued by femSheps.
[/quote]
And that's great, if they're even alive/recruited/imported in the first place.

Still no reason for them to be a squadmate.

Still no reason for them to be plot relevant.

[quote]
I do not understand the relevance of this statement in regards to my criticism.  I know that's the argument and I know that it's in regards to squad mates.  I read some arguments that specifically stated that old squad members will not be cameos either solely or significantly based on their inevitable decision to remain with Shepard to battle the Reaper threat.  I pointed out that it is indeed still possible for a returning character to battle the Reaper threat from afar--as a cameo.
[/quote]
If your statements aren't supporting the argument that ME2 squadmates will be squadmates in ME3, then why are you bothering to make such statements?

[quote]
ME2 =/= ME3.  They are two different games, each a distinct part of a trilogy, and therefore two different variables.  You cannot treat them the same way as if they were the same variable or identical, especially since we have insufficient information on ME3.  Predicting a pattern without enough information is not as simple as implementing a regression equation.  You are simply listing potential events, not logical reasonings or lines of thought, i.e., critiques/analyses of ME2/ME3.
[/quote]
Yes, but these things, called games, have properties, which are the same.  Like...squadmates.

Um...I can look at the Virmire sacrifice.  They weren't imported into ME2.

I can then look at anyone who died in ME2.  They aren't imported into ME3.

This is simple logic.
[quote]
Again, purposefully snarky comment with your play on words (and preoccupation with everything wrong with ME'2 plot--something I am not discussing) that does not address my statements.  I am uncertain why you feel the need to do this.
[/quote]
To prove that the plot of ME2 has nothing to do with the characters. Then, for anyone, or you for that matter, to imply that ME2 characters will have any plot relevance in ME3.

[quote]
Read my words carefully:  "In ME2, interaction with the crew was essential to the success of the mission.  You had to recruit a number of squad mates and in order to have a desirable outcome, you had  to gain some squad mates' loyalty. In order to achieve this, you must initiate conversations with the different characters, who don't immediately start talking about their loyalty missions."
[/quote]
"In ME2, interaction with the crew was essential to the success of the mission." = false.  I don't have to read any further.

[quote]
You are simply rephrasing some of my statements.  Recruitment and loyalty missions equate to the building and fostering of squad member relationships.
[/quote]
To Shepard.

So?

[quote]
The latter question is more a personal one.  In any case, as I'd stated previously, having a 'replacement crew' or mere cameos for ME2 squad members would imply that the [significant] relationships which both gamer and developer spent time and effort building, were indeed not significant (being replaced so easily or reduced to a brief appearance, etc).  Players spend time interacting, building these relationships; it is understandable that they might want to see those relationships flourish or otherwise continue.
[/quote]
I don't see why a cameo wouldn't be as significant or insignifant as however the writer wishes.  We don't need a massive dialog tree, or one at all in the first place.  Romance is romance.  That can exist just fine as an independent thing, outside of being a squadmate in ME3.

[quote]
I hope you are not taking my words out of context, as I was still discussing what I deemed the goal of ME2:  "...to build and foster relationships with the crew."  I did not mention plot anywhere with regards to this goal, yet you again bring up the shortcomings of ME2's plot.  What I do mention is that this goal would indeed be meaningless and unnecessary if ME3 significantly reduces the roles of these characters and relationships.  As mentioned previously, such relationships/characters have the potential to be a significant part of ME3's plot (again, previous examples--Tali as Admiral, Haestrom's sun, etc).
[/quote]
The goal of ME2 was to Stop the Collectors.

ME2 was about dealing with your squadmates daddy issues.

Why would the goal of ME2's plot be meaningless and unnecessary if ME3 reduces these characters to cameos???  That doesn't even begin to make sense.  So because you have squadmates from ME2 and relationships, they MUST be squadmates in ME3? 

They can just stand in one place on the ship, or a planet, and you can come visit them now and again.  Developing as more main plot points pass.  How is not bringing them as a squadmate cheapening that relationship?

[quote]
You ignore the former half of the statement (gamers) and focus solely on the salaries of those working on the project, something I did not mention.  While getting paid is not completely irrelevant, they still spent time and effort crafting the relationships/dialogue/etc while maintaining continuity.  You are also assuming that the designers/writers cared only for a paycheck.  Why bother putting so much time, money, and effort into the relationships if only to disregard them later?  And the writers do indeed have the liberty to craft the story.
[/quote]
Um, no, I'm saying the workers don't have the final say, and it's all up to the guys (Guy: Casey) in charge.  In game design/development, EVERYONE has ideas, and not everyone's going to get a say.

[quote]
I believe that is my point:  that it is potentially not as difficult to write for an already established character as a new one--hence being more impractical.  Especially considering that the old crew members, cameo or not, must be also taken into account and have their roles and dialogue written and performed, however minimized.[/quote]
But it is more difficult to include a character that can die/not exist/not be imported into the next story and make them relevant.

As opposed to just writing a new character that can be plot integral.

[quote]
Creating a storyline for a previous squad mate blahblahblah
[/quote]
Yeah, and can be handled as a cameo.

[quote]
A lot of things "would suffice," but since Bioware have placed great significance on the imported save and continuity, we might infer that squad mate relationships carry over to ME3, carrying significance and impact on its plot.
[/quote]
How?
They can die.
They can not be recruited.
They can not be imported.

Therefore, they can't have plot relevance.  Now maybe BioWare's ambitions, and will write intricate scenes and levels just for potentially not dead/recruited/imported characters.  Maybe.  My money's on "fat flying chance."

[quote]
Again, you resort to mockery in avoiding my opening statement.  I don't understand this method.
[/quote]
You're hilarious.

[quote]
As stated quite a number of times now, characters have the potential to be the storyline or a crucial part of it.  In fact, my entire point was that we cannot casually dismiss the possibility of the significance (to the plot) of a character death.  My example was Polyneices from Antigone.  You side-stepped the issue, failing to address that particular paragraph's thesis.
[/quote]
Because it's unnecessarily boring and dumb?

Look, if characters in a previous story are:
1) plot irrelevant
2) Can die
3) Can not even be part of the narrative
4) Can not even be carried over into the next chapter

Then the odds are against you in having 1) a plot relevant character be imported, 2) them becoming a squadmate.

That's the crux of the argument.

SURE, the possibility of BioWare spending the time and money to make all this crazy content to somehow have some multi-faceted main plot with dozens of characters that are ALL INTRICATELY CONNECTED sounds possible, AND be squadmates (just becuase!), but they will never, ever be plot integral.  They'll just be "there" to push something related to the plot along.  If they were integral, then BioWare would have to pull a Lazarus 2.0 or an Elseworlds "What if" alternate universe work.

[quote]
Again, I explained why interaction with certain squad mates are a necessity (to advance the story) and elaborated upon the most desirable outcome.  I never stated that we need all squad mates to be "fully fleshed out" to merely complete the Suicide Mission.
[/quote]
Your first line was wrong.

[quote]
Again, you are preoccupied with ME2's plot, when my main points were addressing the future, possibilities, i.e., ME3--how ME2 relationships may figure into the plot of ME3.  And if not, how that diminishes such relationships with apparently no significant purpose--how that may even demean ME2 as a whole if it was indeed a "character building" game.  You are also again assuming that the ME2 characters and relationships do not have the potential to affect ME3.
[/quote]
Yeah but those people can die, so it's irrelevant.

IT DOES NOT diminish the relationships.  How?  We learned about the characters in ME2.  What, do we need more exposition?  Another crisis they need Shepards help with?  All because we built up a relationship with them?

No.  They can just be cameos.  Talk to them here and there.  Just like how Liara, Anderson and Wrex were treated.

[quote]
Brand new character can indeed be plot integral; I never suggested otherwise.  It is very plausible that ME3 will have plenty of new characters or even new squad mates.  Writers can write in relevant characters without being 'placeholders,' as they, again, have that potential to affect plot; I do not see why there are only three outcomes for this rather vague statement.  If I am reading this wrong, please rephrase and clarify.
[/quote]
I don't even know what you're asking.

Modifié par smudboy, 02 août 2010 - 07:07 .

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Excellent post BlackVeldt. Smudboy employed the same verbal tactics when debating with me. My only conclusion to that level of maturity is that he is in fact a kid. Not just based on his level of maturity in a discussion, but also the fact that he has "boy" written in his name along with the fact that he's a Tali fan. And not to generalize a fan group, but it's a well known fact that most Tali fans are young kids.

You make excellent points regarding the patterns of Mass 2 and Mass 3 not being identical. People assume that Bioware sidelined the Mass 1 squad because they couldn't make them squadmates, or because it would cost to much. They also assume that because a game could be 100% different for one player than the other, Bioware won't implement it in the game because some people might not see it on their playthrough. All I have to say to that is Urdnot Wrex. Plain and simple.

-Polite

Wow, your deductive skills know no bounds.

I'm going to go construct a new persona before my personality bleeds out of my ears.

While you still can't reply to my previous post, several pages ago.

[tertium organum]

Blackveldt is one of those folks that's going to go ham on Bioware when his careful syllogisms are shattered. One thing, for all the formal accuracy of what he's saying ( this is the poverty of pure fallacy detection btw) he's ignoring what Bioware has done and what they've said - clear indications of just how ME3 characters will be handled. These are the best indicators of what they'll do, not abstract, merely theoretical possibilities. Instead, just like those who explain away the idiotic behavior of the council in ME2, they invent theoretical explanations that only have formal but not actual relevance - it's all fine to sharpen your logical tools by pointing out that simply because characters can die doesn't mean they won't come back fully playable. This is sort of like saying "Just because Madden is marginally upgraded every year doesn't mean this year it won't completely change." Factually correct but naive.



We're addressing probabilities here, not a strict deduction. People that are honing on the story aspects that make bringing the characters back an intelligent choice forget or don't realize that Bioware is not making decisions concerning a coherent plot first. That it makes sense story wise is not enough. This is the arch problem - people continue to wonder incredulously why Bioware would spend a game recruiting people only to kill them off and have them not return. They then go on to infer that it must be because Bioware will have them in the next game - except Bioware has already explained and demonstrated exactly how they will incorporate characters that can die. And have it as fundamental goal that meeting new characters is a must. Meaning, it is simply not feasible for everyone to return. But doesn't this undermine the story? Hell yes it does. What is the point of ME2 then? All of us critical of the plot wonder the same thing but there it is. Bioware simply messed up.



And polite, all the incredulous questions you ask about ME2 characters can be asked about ME1. Ashley/Kaiden reasons for not joining are laughable along with Liara. You can continue to believe that this model will not be repeated but it's your head that will be exploding in a year or so, so do you.

[Whatever42]

I think this thread has shot down all the reasons the ME1 and ME2 team CAN'T return as squad mates in ME3. Now the only question is "will bioware's writing team choose to bring them back in that role or some other role?"

In that regard, I simply think the tea leaves aren't going to show us enough to make any conclusions beyond wild guesses and wishful thinking. Hudson's interview about how wonderful new mates are was in defense of ME2 and it's "dirty dozen" plot. I seriously doubt it was meant to convey that every Bioware sequel will always have a completely different squad because the Bioware writing team doesn't know how to write anything else.

My wild guess is that with 80% of ME2 built around building a squad, which is much more time than Bioware normally dedicates, that they'll be back as either mates or in a very signficant non-squad role. I think its actually easier to bring them back as squadmates, otherwise Wrex's brother has a lot of filling in to do, and it would be more satisfying.

But that's both a guess and wishful thinking.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 02 août 2010 - 07:19 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I think this thread has shot down all the reasons the ME1 and ME2 team CAN'T return as squad mates in ME3. Now the only question is "will bioware's writing team choose to bring them back in that role or some other role?"

In that regard, I simply think the tea leaves aren't going to show us enough to make any conclusions beyond wild guesses and wishful thinking. Hudson's interview about how wonderful new mates are was in defense of ME2 and it's "dirty dozen" plot. I seriously doubt it was meant to convey that every Bioware sequel will always have a completely different squad because the Bioware writing team doesn't know how to write anything else.

My wild guess is that with 80% of ME2 built around building a squad, which is much more time than Bioware normally dedicates, that they'll be back as either mates or in a very signficant non-squad role. I think its actually easier to bring them back as squadmates, otherwise Wrex's brother has a lot of filling in to do, and it would be more satisfying.

But that's both a guess and wishful thinking.

The point is, if Bioware dedicated an entire game to the squadmates, why remove them from the final act, and give them a little cameo? After all of that relationship building, just up and gone?  They think that because Ash/kaidan got cameos, that Bioware will do that to everyone now.

-Polite

Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 02 août 2010 - 07:23 .

[SmokePants]

You guys have romanticized these characters beyond all reason. It's like you can't see the forest for the tree that you're having sex with.

[Wittand25]



PoliteAssasin wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

1. Mass Effect 2 is all about the squad members.

No, the point of ME2 was more to expand the universe and to work as a brigde for the things that will happen in ME3 (e.g. Tali and Legion give you both sides of the geth/quarian conflict; Grunt, Mordin, Samara teach you more about their raceses , ...) There is far to little character interaction to claim that the game is about the characters, often the characters are ways to portray different views of the universe or topic.

You are wrong. Bioware stated in THIS video that Mass Effect 2 is all about the squad mates. That the focus of the game is the squad. You must not be playing the same game. It is because you cannot accept this fact that I won't be able to debate further with you, because I am providing more than sufficient evidence to support that Mass Effect 2's focus is the squad mates.



If Bioware says it, then that's what it is. I, and other people on this forum, am going to believe what Bioware said over a forumite any day. Why? Because I heard it directly from the mouth of one of their developers. And if they allow that comment from the developer to be featured in the video, that tells me that EVERYONE at Bioware supports his statement about Mass 2.



So how can you contradict Bioware by saying the focus isn't the squadmates? What makes you think they're wrong and your right? Please do share.



-Polite

You do know what marketing is right ? And that in marketing superlatives and exaggerations are a common feature ? Because if ME2 is all about the squad-mates I have played a different game. Yes interaction with the squad-mates is what masks the rather weak main plot ( which was kind of expected the second part of a trilogy is usually not the best). But the most and the most important decisions ( if we exclude Shepard´s survival) have little to do with the squad-mates (Mordin does not care what you choose, neither does Legion,Tali or the others): the squad-mates usually only serve as a way to present the problems that need to be decided or to drive home facts about the universe.

Claiming that the squad-mates and relationships with them are the sole point of the game contradicts the game mechanic of the binary loyalty switch. And just like with the question of the gender of Asari I believe my own senses more than any Bioware employee.

[Whatever42]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I think this thread has shot down all the reasons the ME1 and ME2 team CAN'T return as squad mates in ME3. Now the only question is "will bioware's writing team choose to bring them back in that role or some other role?"

In that regard, I simply think the tea leaves aren't going to show us enough to make any conclusions beyond wild guesses and wishful thinking. Hudson's interview about how wonderful new mates are was in defense of ME2 and it's "dirty dozen" plot. I seriously doubt it was meant to convey that every Bioware sequel will always have a completely different squad because the Bioware writing team doesn't know how to write anything else.

My wild guess is that with 80% of ME2 built around building a squad, which is much more time than Bioware normally dedicates, that they'll be back as either mates or in a very signficant non-squad role. I think its actually easier to bring them back as squadmates, otherwise Wrex's brother has a lot of filling in to do, and it would be more satisfying.

But that's both a guess and wishful thinking.

The point is, if Bioware dedicated an entire game to the squadmates, why remove them from the final act, and give them a little cameo? After all of that relationship building, just up and gone?  They think that because Ash/kaidan got cameos, that Bioware will do that to everyone now.

-Polite

Oh, I totally agree. I also don't know how they can give them significant non-squad roles without having to give each one a brother/sister to sub in, such as with Wrex. In my opinion, they either reduce them to cameos (highly unlikely imo) or make them squad mates.

We also have to recognize that for the large majority of people, the large majority of team members lived. If you got most of your squad killed, you either did it on purpose or rushed through the game. In either case, having a smaller squad in ME3 is probably fine.

Of course, we're assuming that the Bioware writing team thinks like us. I really have no evidence that they do. I do know they respond to feedback and people were pissed about the ash/kaiden cameo so I doubt they would disappoint their fans. But can I offer proof enough to win a debate? Probably not. But then again, the other side hasn't got anything, beyond the old "Bioware sucks" or Hudson says he likes cheeseburgers so we have to assume he only eats cheeseburgers argument. 

So, we'll just have to see. 

[Wittand25]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Of course, we're assuming that the Bioware writing team thinks like us. I really have no evidence that they do. I do know they respond to feedback and people were pissed about the ash/kaiden cameo so I doubt they would disappoint their fans. But can I offer proof enough to win a debate? Probably not. But then again, the other side hasn't got anything, beyond the old "Bioware sucks" or Hudson says he likes cheeseburgers so we have to assume he only eats cheeseburgers argument. 

So, we'll just have to see. 

If I would take that last sentence completely seriously I would be offended.  I mentioned several good reasons why extensive cameos are more likely than full squad-membership for most of the ME2 crew-members in my opinion,
But this whole debate is pointless until we learn at least the first tiny facts about ME3 sometime in the future. Once we know a little bit more about the game other than it will come ,we can use better arguments as " We want them" on the pro and "We want new ones" on the contra side. Because the likelyhood of squad-members returning largely depends on the setting of ME3 (if it immediately continues most squad members remaining is very likely; if there is a similar two year gap between the plot of ME2 and ME3 as there was between ME1 and 2 most of the squad-mates moving on and rejoining Shepard later in game/appearing as cameos is more likely).

Modifié par Wittand25, 02 août 2010 - 07:52 .

[lovgreno]

I understand that the developers wants something big and tempting to bring new players in so why not just let the default not imported Shepard have everyone surviving (including Wrex) from the two previous games? Those with dead people in the baggage; no problem, just remove those from the list of requitables.Could that make everyone happy?

[KainrycKarr]

lovgreno wrote...

I understand that the developers wants something big and tempting to bring new players in so why not just let the default not imported Shepard have everyone surviving (including Wrex) from the two previous games? Those with dead people in the baggage; no problem, just remove those from the list of requitables.Could that make everyone happy?

Technically, yea, but Bioware/EA would likely take the "new players won't understand/be confused about all these old characters talking about things that happened previously".

Lame excuse, but it's an excuse that's been used before.

[smudboy]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
We also have to recognize that for the large majority of people, the large majority of team members lived. If you got most of your squad killed, you either did it on purpose or rushed through the game. In either case, having a smaller squad in ME3 is probably fine.

And if only one player got the majority of his squad killed, the story has to account for that.

Which means they won't be squadmates.
Which means they won't have any plot relevance.
Which means everyone won't have any plot relevance.

They might be a generic placeholder, but that's about it.  Cameos seem probable.  Emails too.

Of course, we're assuming that the Bioware writing team thinks like us. I really have no evidence that they do. I do know they respond to feedback and people were pissed about the ash/kaiden cameo so I doubt they would disappoint their fans. But can I offer proof enough to win a debate? Probably not. But then again, the other side hasn't got anything, beyond the old "Bioware sucks" or Hudson says he likes cheeseburgers so we have to assume he only eats cheeseburgers argument. 

So, we'll just have to see. 

It's not a matter of how the writing team works.  It's how variable ME2 ends.

The "other side" hasn't got anything?  Have you been reading anything these 20 pages?  Or are you so blind you can't accept the fact that: 1) they can all die, 2) characters don't even need to be recruited, 3) you don't have to import a save, 4) save Mordin, all characters were irrelevant to the plot.

[Wraith_of_Dawn]

Is it possible to make so that new (non-imported) characters have the members explain themselves, or even easier, the new players could use something that is already in the game, something called the Codex. Add Codex entries for the Squad members themselves to the list of entries. If the new members want to know, it is right there.

[Whatever42]

Wittand25 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Of course, we're assuming that the Bioware writing team thinks like us. I really have no evidence that they do. I do know they respond to feedback and people were pissed about the ash/kaiden cameo so I doubt they would disappoint their fans. But can I offer proof enough to win a debate? Probably not. But then again, the other side hasn't got anything, beyond the old "Bioware sucks" or Hudson says he likes cheeseburgers so we have to assume he only eats cheeseburgers argument. 

So, we'll just have to see. 

If I would take that last sentence completely seriously I would be offended.  I mentioned several good reasons why extensive cameos are more likely than full squad-membership for most of the ME2 crew-members in my opinion,
But this whole debate is pointless until we learn at least the first tiny facts about ME3 sometime in the future. Once we know a little bit more about the game other than it will come ,we can use better arguments as " We want them" on the pro and "We want new ones" on the contra side. Because the likelyhood of squad-members returning largely depends on the setting of ME3 (if it immediately continues most squad members remaining is very likely; if there is a similar two year gap between the plot of ME2 and ME3 as there was between ME1 and 2 most of the squad-mates moving on and rejoining Shepard later in game/appearing as cameos is more likely).

I didn't read the whole thread so I'm not picking on any one person. It's just that reading the Hudson interview, I think its a huge stretch to read anything into that. I can see bringing it for debate purposes, just to throw stuff and see what sticks, but Hudson was clearly defending the criticism of ME2. I could also use that interview to support them bringing back the characters since Bioware takes such criticism seriously.

And perhaps I'm just less cynical about Bioware, that they will dump all the current characters to make ME3 accessible. If they learned anything from ME2, is that most of its audience played ME1 anyway, or were very happy to do so. I don't really buy evil EA forcing them to create all new characters works. 

My only point is that there is no real difficulties to bringing them back - financial, artistic, or  technical. There is also really no evidence that they are leaning against bring them back. However, its bioware's story so I cannot predict what they will do - I really have no idea, nor do any of us. I do think that whatever they do, its because they think its the best path for their game. 

[pvt_java]

smudboy wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
We also have to recognize that for the large majority of people, the large majority of team members lived. If you got most of your squad killed, you either did it on purpose or rushed through the game. In either case, having a smaller squad in ME3 is probably fine.

And if only one player got the majority of his squad killed, the story has to account for that.

Which means they won't be squadmates.
Which means they won't have any plot relevance.
Which means everyone won't have any plot relevance.

They might be a generic placeholder, but that's about it.  Cameos seem probable.  Emails too.

Of course, we're assuming that the Bioware writing team thinks like us. I really have no evidence that they do. I do know they respond to feedback and people were pissed about the ash/kaiden cameo so I doubt they would disappoint their fans. But can I offer proof enough to win a debate? Probably not. But then again, the other side hasn't got anything, beyond the old "Bioware sucks" or Hudson says he likes cheeseburgers so we have to assume he only eats cheeseburgers argument. 

So, we'll just have to see. 

It's not a matter of how the writing team works.  It's how variable ME2 ends.

The "other side" hasn't got anything?  Have you been reading anything these 20 pages?  Or are you so blind you can't accept the fact that: 1) they can all die, 2) characters don't even need to be recruited, 3) you don't have to import a save, 4) save Mordin, all characters were irrelevant to the plot.

1) Just because some mindless player out there lost the majority of his crew and squad doesn't mean that we have to suffer for it. If Bioware really wants to innovate gaming, they will have players be punished for losing the squad in ME2, and have multiple storylines based on the events of your version of ME2. If they don't, then ME3 will be very mediocre.
2) Garrus does not need to be recruited in ME1, but he appears in ME2. This point is irrelevant.
3) Yes, you don't have to import a save, but it definitely helps. You get loads of credits and bonuses for doing it. People who do not import have a clear disadvantage.
4) Mordin, EDI, Miranda, Garrus, Tali, and Jack were all relevant. But then again, not all characters have to be relevant - there are plenty of good characters in movies, games, and literature who were not all that relevant to the plot.

[Whatever42]

smudboy wrote...

The "other side" hasn't got anything?  Have you been reading anything these 20 pages?  Or are you so blind you can't accept the fact that: 1) they can all die, 2) characters don't even need to be recruited, 3) you don't have to import a save, 4) save Mordin, all characters were irrelevant to the plot.

All easily countered.

1) So? For the large majority of players, most won't die. Those that kill most of the squad either wanted to or rushed through the game and didn't care about them anyway.
2) Again, so? The large majority of players will recruit all of them. Those that don't recruit obviously don't care.
3) Again, so? Bioware makes the choices for them.
4) All the characters in ME1 except Liara were irrelevant to the plot. Actually, most party members in most Bioware games are irrelevant to the plot. I sense a theme!

Your points are lame but you will repeat them in 50 different ways, ignoring evidence or redefining terms as it suits you, mixed in with random name calling, as is your habit. Consequently, I'm not even bother going to respond to your normal pedantic shuffling unless you bring up something new or at least interesting. I'll just leave it at I think your arguments are sad but go on repeating them over and over. I hear the more you repeat something, the more true it gets.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 02 août 2010 - 08:27 .

[smudboy]

pvt_java wrote...
1) Just because some mindless player out there lost the majority of his crew and squad doesn't mean that we have to suffer for it. If Bioware really wants to innovate gaming, they will have players be punished for losing the squad in ME2, and have multiple storylines based on the events of your version of ME2. If they don't, then ME3 will be very mediocre.

Why would a game punish a player for letting them play it however they wanted?  That's just horrible thinking.  No one's going to appreciate BioWare if they do something like that.

Perhaps you mean "not reward."

I don't think "innovate gaming" involves hurting, or insulting the player.  They do that well enough just by releasing crap stories.

2) Garrus does not need to be recruited in ME1, but he appears in ME2. This point is irrelevant.

Oh, so they'll just get recruited on a main plot point/another recruit mission, again, just because someone never got them in ME2?  Great.  More proof the events of ME2 were even more irrelevant.

3) Yes, you don't have to import a save, but it definitely helps. You get loads of credits and bonuses for doing it. People who do not import have a clear disadvantage.

Like having no surviving squadmates.  As they'll have a canon new game setting, which implies Shepard coming back from the Suicide Mission.  If ME2 is any indication (Wrex dead, rachni dead, etc.), that implies everyone dying.

4) Mordin, EDI, Miranda, Garrus, Tali, and Jack were all relevant. But then again, not all characters have to be relevant - there are plenty of good characters in movies, games, and literature who were not all that relevant to the plot.

Aside from Mordin, how was Miranda, Garrus, Tali and Jack relevant to the plot?

If characters are not relevant to the story they're introduced in, why would they be relevant to later stories, especially since they can all die?

[smudboy]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

1) So? For the large majority of players, most won't die. Those that kill most of the squad either wanted to or rushed through the game and didn't care about them anyway.

You're missing the point.

IF they can die, THEN that outcome must be accounted for.  As with the 1000+ or so variables that are being tracked on an import.

Unless the import is completely useless, and BioWare just does wtf it wants.  (Psst: this won't happen.)

This makes your counter not only stupid, but irrelevant.  Like you didn't even have one.  Because you didn't.

2) Again, so? The large majority of players will recruit all of them. Those that don't recruit obviously don't care.

And again...if it is an outcome, the story must take that into account.

This is not an analysis of the internal opinion of players.  This is how BioWare will handle the variables in the import, which MUST take into account EVERY variation.

3) Again, so? Bioware makes the choices for them.

Oh?  So it doesn't even matter how many people you saved/didn't save/didn't recruit?

Congratu-f*cking-lations.  BioWare will just do wtf it wants regrardless of how everyone played the game their own way.  So glad I heard your opinion.

4) All the characters in ME1 except Liara were irrelevant to the plot. Actually, most party members in most Bioware games are irrelevant to the plot. I sense a theme!

Tali, Liara and Ashley/Kaidan were all plot relevant, and integral.  Maybe you need to replay it?

Your points are lame but you will repeat them in 50 different ways, ignoring evidence or redefining terms as it suits you, mixed in with random name calling, as is your habit. Consequently, I'm not even bother going to respond to your normal pedantic shuffling unless you bring up something new or at least interesting. I'll just leave it at I think your arguments are sad but go on repeating them over and over. I hear the more you repeat something, the more true it gets.

I'm quite sure my points aren't lame.  I think in comparison to the other "woo hoo 12 squadmates in me3 from me2" posters on here, you're the dumbest.

No offense of course.  Just my opinion.

[KainrycKarr]

Smud, are you against the characters coming back?

[pvt_java]

smudboy wrote...

pvt_java wrote...
1) Just because some mindless player out there lost the majority of his crew and squad doesn't mean that we have to suffer for it. If Bioware really wants to innovate gaming, they will have players be punished for losing the squad in ME2, and have multiple storylines based on the events of your version of ME2. If they don't, then ME3 will be very mediocre.

Why would a game punish a player for letting them play it however they wanted?  That's just horrible thinking.  No one's going to appreciate BioWare if they do something like that.

Perhaps you mean "not reward."

I don't think "innovate gaming" involves hurting, or insulting the player.  They do that well enough just by releasing crap stories.

2) Garrus does not need to be recruited in ME1, but he appears in ME2. This point is irrelevant.

Oh, so they'll just get recruited on a main plot point/another recruit mission, again, just because someone never got them in ME2?  Great.  More proof the events of ME2 were even more irrelevant.

3) Yes, you don't have to import a save, but it definitely helps. You get loads of credits and bonuses for doing it. People who do not import have a clear disadvantage.

Like having no surviving squadmates.  As they'll have a canon new game setting, which implies Shepard coming back from the Suicide Mission.  If ME2 is any indication (Wrex dead, rachni dead, etc.), that implies everyone dying.

4) Mordin, EDI, Miranda, Garrus, Tali, and Jack were all relevant. But then again, not all characters have to be relevant - there are plenty of good characters in movies, games, and literature who were not all that relevant to the plot.

Aside from Mordin, how was Miranda, Garrus, Tali and Jack relevant to the plot?

If characters are not relevant to the story they're introduced in, why would they be relevant to later stories, especially since they can all die?

Miranda was a Cerberus Agent who at least was used as a plot device to get the plot moving in the beginning. Garrus is the best option for the alternate squad leader, Tali is the best option for the Tunnels, and Jack is the best (arguably) option for the biotic specialist. I'm not saying that they will be important to later stories, but I am saying that this is a game and not all characters have to be 100% important to the plot. Garrus and Tali weren't even important in ME1 - nor was Dr. Chakwas. They don't have to be relevant in a game like this, the purpose of characters in an RPG, is for the most part to flesh out the universe. 

And have you ever seen a game that doesn't punish players for poor decisions? We can take this back to Pacman, for god's sake. If I make a wrong turn the Ghost will eat me. If I lose my squad and crew, I will be at a disadvantage in the next game. 

[smudboy]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Smud, are you against the characters coming back?

Not at all.  OPs analysis is correct.

It's these other idiots who don't know basic...reason...how they fathom how and why they're coming back as squadmates.  It's like they can't see the obvious.

Reasons to have Squadmates not return:
1) They can all die
2) Some don't even need to be recruited
3) No import (see 1)
4) No plot relevance (save Mordin.)

Reasons to have Squadmates come back:
1) Lazarus Project 2.0 (per squadmate)
2) They can be recruited this time in ME3
3) <no argument>
4) <no argument>

The only reasonable argument are the two possible survivors, who can act as placeholders.  The rest of the survivors are reduced to cameos, NPCs, and the like.  ME3 has to be about Stopping the Reapers, because they sure weren't doing anything like that in ME2.

[pvt_java]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Smud, are you against the characters coming back?

Smud is against everything. Haven't you figured this out by now?

[KainrycKarr]

No, I try to take each thread as un-biased as possible.



The only way I see bioware bringing them back is if they truly want to break the bank for me3, by planning out and designing for all possiblities.



Is this possible? Some would say no, but personally I didn't think a fully-voiced mmorpg would be feasible.



So Bioware has a knack for doing things over-the-top.



They can do it if they want to, but ultimately what matters is why would Bioware want to? And there are many reasons to do so, and not do so.

[pvt_java]

I could see 2 squadmates returning from ME2, since the bare minimum that can survive without Shepard dying is 2.

[smudboy]

pvt_java wrote...
Miranda was a Cerberus Agent who at least was used as a plot device to get the plot moving in the beginning. Garrus is the best option for the alternate squad leader, Tali is the best option for the Tunnels, and Jack is the best (arguably) option for the biotic specialist. I'm not saying that they will be important to later stories, but I am saying that this is a game and not all characters have to be 100% important to the plot. Garrus and Tali weren't even important in ME1 - nor was Dr. Chakwas. They don't have to be relevant in a game like this, the purpose of characters in an RPG, is for the most part to flesh out the universe. 

Sorry, what plot device did Miranda serve to get the plot moving?  That's like saying Captain Anderson, Udina and Hacket were plot devices at the beginning of ME1.

Who cares if Garrus was the best option for alternative squad leader?  WTF does that have to do with anything?

WTF does Tali being the "best" option for the tunnels (which she's just one of the best?)

Ditto with Jack.

So because this is a game, they don't have to be 100% important to the plot?  Well that's called bad writing, regardless of it being a game.

Tali was PLOT INTEGRAL to ME1.  Without her evidence, the plot would've gone nowhere.   If Tali was not plot integral to ME1, then Mordin wasn't plot integral to ME2.

The issue with these plot integral characters is: they can't die.  Or at least till their plot relevance is expressed.  Therefore, ALL ME2 characters won't be plot integral, because they can all die.

And have you ever seen a game that doesn't punish players for poor decisions? We can take this back to Pacman, for god's sake. If I make a wrong turn the Ghost will eat me. If I lose my squad and crew, I will be at a disadvantage in the next game. 

That's not a punishment.  That's a consequence of walking into a ghost.  A punishment would be losing all your points as soon as you ran into a ghost, or insulting the player in some way.  There are such things as negative reinforcement, but that's something a bit different.

No game, or thing designed for entertainment, should punish the audience.